Using Artificial Intelligence to Assist Tree Risk Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Bond J

   . 2011a. Tree load basic field analysis. Arborist News. 20(2):24–26.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Bond J

   . 2011b. Tree load: Concept. Arborist News. 20(1):12–17.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bond J

   . 2012. Production use of the BMP tree risk assessment method. Arborist News. 21(4):20–21.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bothe HH

   . 1993. Fuzzy logic: Einführung in Theorie und Anwendungen. Berlin (Germany): Springer. 228 p.
5. ↵
   1. Dujesiefken D

   1. Böttcher J,
   2. Weihs U,
   3. Rust S

   . 2016. Untersuchungen zum Schlankheitsgrad (l/d-Verhältnis) von Rosskastanienästen (Aesculus spp.). In: Dujesiefken D, editor. Jahrbuch der Baumpflege 2016. Braunschweig (Germany): Haymarket Media Group. p. 236–244.
6. ↵
   1. Cannell MGR,
   2. Morgan J

   . 1989. Branch breakage under snow and ice loads. Tree Physiology. 5(3):307–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/5.3.307

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Ciftci C,
   2. Arwade SR,
   3. Kane B,
   4. Brena SF

   . 2014. Analysis of the probability of failure for open-grown trees during wind storms. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics. 37:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.04.002

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Ciftci C,
   2. Kane B,
   3. Brena SF,
   4. Arwade SR

   . 2014. Loss in moment capacity of tree stems induced by decay. Trees. 28(2):517–529. https://doi.org/10.1107/s00468-013-0968-8

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Dahle GA,
   2. James KR,
   3. Kane B,
   4. Grabosky JC,
   5. Detter A

   . 2017. A review of factors that affect the static load-bearing capacity of urban trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 43(3):89–106. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2017.009

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Dubois DJ,
    2. Prade H

    . 1980. Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. 1st Ed. London (UK): Academic Press. 393 p.
11. ↵
    1. Dunster JA

    . 2014. Fatalities and injuries caused by trees: Do we have a problem? Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 40(6):352–354. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2014.034

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Dunster JA,
    2. Smiley ET,
    3. Matheny N,
    4. Lilly S

    . 2013. Tree risk assessment manual. 1st Ed. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 194 p.
13. ↵
    1. Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau e.V. (FLL)

    . 2004. Richtlinie zur Überprüfung der Verkehrssicherheit von Bäumen. Bonn (Germany): FLL.
14. 1. Gladwell M

    . 2005. Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. 1st Ed. Boston (MA, USA): Little, Brown and Company. 320 p.
15. ↵
    1. Hartley MA,
    2. Chalk JJ

    . 2019. A review of deaths in Australia from accidental tree failures. Melbourne (VIC, Australia): Arboriculture Australia. 18 p.
16. ↵
    1. Dujesiefken D

    1. Jillich S,
    2. Köhler J,
    3. Rust S,
    4. Rust C,
    5. Detter A

    . 2013. Zum Tusammenhang zwischen Schlankheitsgrad und Bruchversagen. In: Dujesiefken D, editor. Jahrbuch der Baumpflege. Braunschweig (Germany): Haymarket Media Group. p. 267–273.
17. ↵
    1. Kane B,
    2. Ryan D,
    3. Bloniarz DV

    . 2001. Comparing formulae that assess strength loss due to decay in trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(2):78–87.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Kane BCP,
    2. Ryan HDPI

    . 2003. Examining formulas that assess strength loss due to decay in trees: Woundwood toughness improvement in red maple (Acer rubrum). Journal of Arboriculture. 29(4):209–217.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Kane BCP,
    2. Ryan HDPI

    . 2004. The accuracy of formulas used to assess strength loss due to decay in trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 30(6):347–356.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Smiley ET

    . 2017. Impact of assessor on tree risk assessment ratings and prescribed mitigation measures. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 24:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.027

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Kosko B,
    2. Toms M

    . 1993. Fuzzy thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic. 1st Ed. New York (NY, USA): Hyperion. 336 p.
22. ↵
    1. Lonsdale D

    . 1999. Principles of tree hazard assessment and management. London (UK): The Stationery Office. 388 p.
23. ↵
    1. MacLane S

    . 1978. Categories for the working mathematician. 2nd Ed. New York (NY, USA): Springer. 329 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4721-8
24. ↵
    1. Mamdani E,
    2. Gaines BR

    . 1981. Fuzzy reasoning and its applications. New York (NY, USA): Academic Press. 381 p.
25. ↵
    1. Matheny N,
    2. Clark J

    . 2009. Tree risk assessment: What we know (and what we don’t know). Arborist News. 18(1):28–33.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Matheny N,
    2. Clark J,
    3. Smiley ET

    . 2006. International Tree Failure Database—User Manual. Version 1.1. Washington (DC, USA): USDA Forest Service. https://ucanr.edu/sites/treefail/files/4358.pdf
27. ↵
    1. Mattheck C,
    2. Bethge K,
    3. Tesari I,
    4. Kappel R

    . 2002. A new failure criterion for non decayed solitary trees. Arboricultural Journal. 26(1):43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2002.9747317

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. ↵
    1. Mattheck C,
    2. Bethge K,
    3. West PW

    . 1994. Breakage of hollow tree stems. Trees. 9(1):47–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00197869

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Morgan J,
    2. Cannell MGR

    . 1987. Structural analysis of tree trunks and branches: Tapered cantilever beams subject to large deflections under complex loading. Tree Physiology. 3(4):365–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/3.4.365

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. ↵
    1. Niklas KJ,
    2. Spatz HC

    . 2000. Wind-induced stresses in cherry trees: Evidence against the hypothesis of constant stress levels. Trees. 14(4):230–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004680050008

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Norris M

    . 2007. Tree risk assessments—what works—what does not—can we tell? A review of a range of existing tree risk assessment methods. ISAAC Conference Perth 2007. p. 1–31.
32. ↵
    1. Norris MB,
    2. Moore GM

    . 2020. How tree risk assessment methods work: Sensitivity analyses of sixteen methods reveal the value of quantification and the impact of inputs on risk ratings. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(6):402–431. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.030

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Rust S

    . 2012. Zur fachlichen Belastbarkeit monokausaler Regeln (h/d, l/d, t/r) und horizontaler Bohrungen zur Beurteilung der Verkehrssicherheit von Bäumen. In: SVK-Gehölzseminar. 35th SVK-Gehölzseminar; 2012 February 6–8; Hannover, Germany.
34. ↵
    1. Rust S,
    2. Roloff A,
    3. Sommer U

    . 2011. Zur Eignung des h/d- Verhältnisses als Versagenskriterium. AFZ-Der Wald. 66(24):32–34.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2016. An argument against the axiom of uniform stress being applicable to trees. Arboricultural Journal. 38(3):143–164. https://doi.org/10/1080/03071375.2016.1202699

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2021. The mechanical effects of bulges developed around bark-included branch junctions of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) and other trees. Trees. 35(5):513–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-020-02053-z

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Smiley ET,
    2. Fraedrich BR

    . 1992. Determining strength loss from decay. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(4):201–204.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Spatz H-C,
    2. Niklas KJ

    . 2013. Modes of failure in tubular plant organs. American Journal of Botany. 100(2):332–336. https://doi.org.10.3732/ajb.1200454

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
39. ↵
    1. Stewart MG,
    2. O’Callaghan D,
    3. Hartley M

    . 2013. Review of QTRA and risk-based cost-benefit assessment of tree management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39(4):165–172. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2013.022

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Wagener WW

    . 1963. Judging hazard from native trees in California recreational areas: A guide for professional foresters. Berkeley (CA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper PSW-RP-1. 29 p.
41. ↵
    1. Watt J,
    2. Ball DJ

    . 2009. Report for the National Tree Safety Group: Trees and the risk of harm. London (UK): Centre for Decision Analysis and Risk Management, Middlesex University. 12 p. https://ntsgroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NTSG-Report-1_Trees-and-the-Risk-of-Harm.pdf
42. ↵
    1. Wessolly L,
    2. Erb M

    . 1998. Handbuch der baumstatik und baumkontrolle. 1st Ed. Berlin (Germany): Patzer. 272 p.
43. ↵
    1. Zadeh LA

    . 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 8(3):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
44. ↵
    1. Zadeh LA

    . 1971. Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Information Sciences. 3(2):177–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(71)80005-1

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science